Lisbon vote October 2nd - How do you intend to vote?

marco_polo · 01-10-2009 11:47pm

Johnnnybravo wrote: »

Oh dont even bother arguing it with him. I saw he posted that but couldnt be bothered listening to lies off him.

As for the whole no voters registering more than once marco, get a grip boy, if tis a dig at me Im registered since july or august last year, so either Im mystic meg or yer theory is a load a cack.

Not sure why you think that was directed at you.

You weren't even quoted in the post? And as you say have 588 or so post in a year and a half.

Sam Vimes · 01-10-2009 11:47pm

Johnnnybravo wrote: »

Off to vote no tomorrow.

I wont be selling out on my country.

The only job thats guaranteed if this gets a yes will be Biffo`s. Maybe if they had amended the bits that people were concerned with it might be a yes but I for one wont be voting for taking away our rights to vote on changes to our own constituency, this isnt nazi germany after all.

They agreed not to enact one of the provisions of the treaty and the other concerns couldn't be addressed by amending the treaty because they were never in it, people simply believed they were because they were lied to. And we're not losing our right to vote on our constitution, that's another lie. But you of course won't believe me

happymondays · 01-10-2009 11:47pm

marco_polo wrote: »

We tend to only register once.

hmmm 8 minutes im impressed.

but seriously eveyone i talk to seem to be voting no also so where all the Yes votes coming from. (obviously i havent talked to everyone single person in ireland but as a percentage of the people that i have)

Stark · 01-10-2009 11:48pm

Maybe he might like to provide some evidence that we're losing our right to vote on future Consitutional amendments.

Johnnnybravo · 01-10-2009 11:48pm

Stark wrote: »

People were concerned with the 18 commissioner rotating system so they changed it to a each country sends a permanent commissioner system.

We have guarantees annexed to the treaty on the remaining issues that concerned voters from Lisbon I. They didn't require token changes to the text of the treaty itself because they weren't incompatible with the treaty.

There not guaranteed:rolleyes:

marco_polo · 01-10-2009 11:48pm

Johnnnybravo wrote: »

Maybe if they had amended the bits that people were concerned with it might be a yes but I for one wont be voting for taking away our rights to vote on changes to our own constituency, this isnt nazi germany after all.

I am pretty sure I asked you before what those missing bits were?

prinz · 01-10-2009 11:48pm

moondogspot wrote: »

Nah...there won't be a 3rd referendum. Britain would probably have a referendum by then and

they would surely sink it.

You may want to check out Cameron and his subtle backtracking on promising a referendum.

Stark · 01-10-2009 11:50pm

Johnnnybravo wrote: »

There not guaranteed:rolleyes:

I'm presume the provisions of the Good Friday Agreement and the Edinburgh Agreement were completely meaningless as well then?

What basis have you for your claim that we're giving away our right to vote on Constitutional amendments?

moondogspot · 01-10-2009 11:51pm

prinz wrote: »

You may want to check out Cameron and his subtle backtracking on promising a referendum.

I have faith in both Klaus & Cameron to sink it once & for all.;)

Johnnnybravo · 01-10-2009 11:53pm

uggg to be honest I couldnt be arsed getting into this now at this hour of the night, Im pretty sure I posted them before anyway. Plenty of people have also mentioned them in this thread.

Im voting no so according to the high and mighty yes men on this thread, I must not understand what Im doing :rolleyes:

Saturday anyway we shall know one way or another.

happymondays · 01-10-2009 11:54pm

prinz wrote: »

You may want to check out Cameron and his subtle backtracking on promising a referendum.

if you read what he actually said, it was if all the other countries had already ratified it by the time he gets in then they will decide what to do.
Which makes sense as no country wants to take the blame for it failing.

Hence the sneaky czechs are waiting for us to vote NO and if we dont then
they will try to delay it until cameron gets in and they vote No. So as long
as the czechs hold out then its not getting ratified/

meglome · 01-10-2009 11:55pm

Jack Bauer999 wrote: »

yeah but in fareness the treaty has changed since the last time so we are voting on something dfferent.

actually wait a minute........

Not to state the obvious but why would they change a treaty when the Irish people for the most part didn't have any problems that were actually contained in the treaty. How do you change what wasn't there? I suppose you could embarrass your nation by having to bizarrely get legal guarantees on things that are mainly not there, yeah that would do it.

Sam Vimes · 01-10-2009 11:57pm

Jack Bauer999 wrote: »

yeah but in fareness the treaty has changed since the last time so we are voting on something dfferent.

actually wait a minute........

They have agreed that one of the provisions of the treaty will not be enacted as was planned and our other issues were never in the treaty. We were lied to by extremists and we believed them. How embarrassing for us

Sam Vimes · 02-10-2009 12:03am

Johnnnybravo wrote: »

Im voting no so according to the high and mighty yes men on this thread, I must not understand what Im doing :rolleyes:

Well no. What makes it look like you don't understand what you're doing is that you have said several things that are factually incorrect, eg that the guarantees aren't guarantees or that we're losing our right to referendums. Neither of those things are true so the logical conclusion is that you don't understand the treaty

free-man · 02-10-2009 12:14am

Stark wrote: »

People were concerned with the 18 commissioner rotating system so they changed it to a each country sends a permanent commissioner system.

We have guarantees annexed to the treaty on the remaining issues that concerned voters from Lisbon I. They didn't require token changes to the text of the treaty itself because they weren't incompatible with the treaty.

Brilliant.. you've got to love it.

I'll try one last time then I have to go..

What part of the treaty did they amend.

Not what did they append, add on, spin, make a decision on etc.

free-man · 02-10-2009 12:15am

marco_polo wrote: »

Not sure why you think that was directed at you. You weren't even quoted in the post? And as you say have 588 or so post in a year and a half.

Amazingly I'm not sure he realizes I'm on the same side!

johnwillnot · 02-10-2009 12:27am

free-man wrote: »

I think there is a groundswell of opinion in Europe that Blair should not be let anywhere near Europe - for more see here:

Stop Blair Campaign Gathers Pace in Europe

Anyway its slightly off topic, the main reason personally to Vote No is as described in earlier posts.

Blair to be Our President

Here is an Excerpt from an Interview with French Foreign Minister:

"French Foreign Minister suggests Blair is currently the only real candidate for EU President. In an interview with France Inter, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner was asked if Tony Blair will become EU President if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified. He said, "In any case, Tony Blair is a candidate and people are talking about it a lot, yes." Asked if there are other candidates, he said, "Not many." Asked who, he said, "No, honestly", to which the interviewer replied, "So it's Blair then?" Kouchner said, "At one point there was Verhofstadt. Wait! There are others who will perhaps put themselves forward; it is not for straight away. But for the moment, indeed..." Asked if he thought it is right that a supporter of the Iraq war should become the first President of Europe, he said, "He has given several speeches on Iraq for a long time; he has been a supporter of peace; he has been the representative of the Quartet for peace in the Middle East. On the other hand, there will also perhaps be Mr. Rasmussen, the Danish President of the Socialist International who will put himself forward, but we don't know of any other candidate."

http://www.opendemocracy.net/blog/ourkingdom/anthony-barnett/2009/09/29/blair-to-be-our-president

Start learning the words to God Save the Quuen id say!

meglome · 02-10-2009 12:29am

johnwillnot wrote: »

Blair to be Our President

Here is an Excerpt from an Interview with French Foreign Minister:

"French Foreign Minister suggests Blair is currently the only real candidate for EU President. In an interview with France Inter, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner was asked if Tony Blair will become EU President if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified. He said, "In any case, Tony Blair is a candidate and people are talking about it a lot, yes." Asked if there are other candidates, he said, "Not many." Asked who, he said, "No, honestly", to which the interviewer replied, "So it's Blair then?" Kouchner said, "At one point there was Verhofstadt. Wait! There are others who will perhaps put themselves forward; it is not for straight away. But for the moment, indeed..." Asked if he thought it is right that a supporter of the Iraq war should become the first President of Europe, he said, "He has given several speeches on Iraq for a long time; he has been a supporter of peace; he has been the representative of the Quartet for peace in the Middle East. On the other hand, there will also perhaps be Mr. Rasmussen, the Danish President of the Socialist International who will put himself forward, but we don't know of any other candidate."

http://www.opendemocracy.net/blog/ourkingdom/anthony-barnett/2009/09/29/blair-to-be-our-president

Start learning the words to God Save the Quuen id say!

You do know there's no such thing as EU president right?

Scofflaw · 02-10-2009 12:31am

johnwillnot wrote: »

Blair to be Our President

Here is an Excerpt from an Interview with French Foreign Minister:

"French Foreign Minister suggests Blair is currently the only real candidate for EU President. In an interview with France Inter, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner was asked if Tony Blair will become EU President if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified. He said, "In any case, Tony Blair is a candidate and people are talking about it a lot, yes." Asked if there are other candidates, he said, "Not many." Asked who, he said, "No, honestly", to which the interviewer replied, "So it's Blair then?" Kouchner said, "At one point there was Verhofstadt. Wait! There are others who will perhaps put themselves forward; it is not for straight away. But for the moment, indeed..." Asked if he thought it is right that a supporter of the Iraq war should become the first President of Europe, he said, "He has given several speeches on Iraq for a long time; he has been a supporter of peace; he has been the representative of the Quartet for peace in the Middle East. On the other hand, there will also perhaps be Mr. Rasmussen, the Danish President of the Socialist International who will put himself forward, but we don't know of any other candidate."

http://www.opendemocracy.net/blog/ourkingdom/anthony-barnett/2009/09/29/blair-to-be-our-president

Start learning the words to God Save the Quuen id say!

Funny - there's a big red thing you're saying, and it doesn't match the text underneath at all.

amused,
Scofflaw

Rb · 02-10-2009 12:34am

johnwillnot wrote: »

Start learning the words to God Save the Quuen id say!

Who is the Quuen? Leader of the lizard people and new world order?

K-9 · 02-10-2009 12:47am

moondogspot wrote: »

Nah...there won't be a 3rd referendum. Britain would probably have a referendum by then and

they would surely sink it.

It amazes me that many people don't trust the Govt. or the EU but then trust a possible Tory Govt.

I suppose it must be in the Treaty that Cameron will have a Referendum and it isn't a political promise.

moondogspot · 02-10-2009 12:49am

K-9 wrote: »

It amazes me that many people don't trust the Govt. or the EU but then trust a possible Tory Govt.

I'm delighted you're amazed.;)

hcvti · 02-10-2009 12:57am

I have read a dozen articles about blair becoming head of the EU, and becoming "EU President", But I for one don't believe it! Mainly because their CURRENTLY isn't that position available, and if NO vote carries it wont be available.

here is another Link:-

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2663036/Tony-Blair-to-head-the-EU-within-weeks.html

prinz · 02-10-2009 1:02am

hcvti wrote: »

I have read a dozen articles about blair becoming head of the EU, and becoming "EU President", But I for one don't believe it! Mainly because their CURRENTLY isn't that position available, and if NO vote carries it wont be available.

here is another Link:-

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2663036/Tony-Blair-to-head-the-EU-within-weeks.html

If a YES vote carries it still won't be available because there is no such post as President of the EU/EU President. What there is, is President of the EU Council, O NO it's held by a Swedish guy and you probably never had a clue!

moogester · 02-10-2009 2:02am

According to the Times, European Council President is a new role.

THE LISBON Treaty would create a new post of European Council president and beef up the existing role of the high representative for common foreign and security policy.

Under the existing EU treaties the presidency of the council of ministers passes every six months, on the basis of equal rotation, between member states.

At the moment Sweden chairs the European Council, which means its government and diplomats organise the work programme of the union and represent the EU at major international events.

Under the Lisbon Treaty it is envisaged that the new European Council president would be nominated by EU leaders for terms of 2½ years.

His/her function would be to chair meetings, co-ordinate work and represent the EU internationally.

A president of the council could serve a maximum of two terms.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0926/1224255282287.html

K-9 · 02-10-2009 2:13am

hcvti wrote: »

I have read a dozen articles about blair becoming head of the EU, and becoming "EU President", But I for one don't believe it! Mainly because their CURRENTLY isn't that position available, and if NO vote carries it wont be available.

here is another Link:-

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2663036/Tony-Blair-to-head-the-EU-within-weeks.html

And even if it is passed:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1577695/Stop-Blair-campaign-gathers-pace-in-Europe.html

Brussels diplomats and officials suggest that it is likely that neither Mr Blair or Mr Juncker are really serious contenders for the job, to be decided at a special Brussels summit in October.
"They both cancel each other out. The Europhiles will oppose Blair and back Juncker. The Euro-realists will back Blair and oppose Juncker allowing another consensus candidate to emerge," said one.

View · 02-10-2009 2:17am

K-9 wrote: »

And even if it is passed:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1577695/Stop-Blair-campaign-gathers-pace-in-Europe.html

Brussels diplomats and officials suggest that it is likely that neither Mr Blair or Mr Juncker are really serious contenders for the job, to be decided at a special Brussels summit in October.
"They both cancel each other out. The Europhiles will oppose Blair and back Juncker. The Euro-realists will back Blair and oppose Juncker allowing another consensus candidate to emerge," said one.

God, if the Telegraph are saying that, Juncker can start his lap of honour now.

johnwillnot · 02-10-2009 2:52am

K-9 wrote: »

And even if it is passed:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1577695/Stop-Blair-campaign-gathers-pace-in-Europe.html

Brussels diplomats and officials suggest that it is likely that neither Mr Blair or Mr Juncker are really serious contenders for the job, to be decided at a special Brussels summit in October.
"They both cancel each other out. The Europhiles will oppose Blair and back Juncker. The Euro-realists will back Blair and oppose Juncker allowing another consensus candidate to emerge," said one.

The Yes side didn't now anything about this post till now and all of a sudden they are experts on the subject.

Here is an excerpt from Breakingnews.ie:

Today Mr Barroso hopes he gets the green light to start work immediately on assembling his new commission team and preparing the ground for top jobs – a “President of Europe” and a new foreign policy chief – which will be created if the Lisbon Treaty is approved.

Read more: http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/eycwgbojcwoj/#ixzz0SjtSOgTy

Scofflaw · 02-10-2009 2:54am

johnwillnot wrote: »

The Yes side didn't now anything about this post till now and all of a sudden they are experts on the subject.

Oddly enough, I have a post from last May outlining all the duties of the position.

johnwillnot wrote: »

Here is an excerpt from Breakingnews.ie:

Today Mr Barroso hopes he gets the green light to start work immediately on assembling his new commission team and preparing the ground for top jobs – a “President of Europe” and a new foreign policy chief – which will be created if the Lisbon Treaty is approved.

Read more: http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/eycwgbojcwoj/#ixzz0SjtSOgTy

You see the "" there? That's because they're not using the proper title.

regards,
Scofflaw

johnwillnot · 02-10-2009 3:09am

Scofflaw wrote: »

Oddly enough, I have a post from last May outlining all the duties of the position.

You see the "" there? That's because they're not using the proper title.

regards,
Scofflaw

Here is a quote from Bertie Ahern on the 28/02/08

He said he "passionately hopes" Ireland will ratify the treaty, and stressed the importance of establishing a president of the EU. "Europe has to be seen to be a coherent voice and that needs a president in office -- not [a new president] every six months, when somebody different comes around with a different set of priorities".

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/ahern-im-not-eyeing-eu-job-1301216.html

The job does not exist until the Lisbon Treaty is ratified. No treaty, no job. The evidence is overwhelming and the Irish people will decide on Friday whether they would like to see Tony Blair representing them abroad.

Lisbon vote October 2nd - How do you intend to vote?

Comments